Obama says 'sorry' to Americans losing health insurance

[boomerangutang]

Just as the Wall Street meltdown of 2008 was partially the fault of greedy Americans - regular folks. So too, a large part of the problem with (who pays for) medical coverage in the US is with regular Americans. Among other things, it's those Americans who don't take proper care of themselves. They ingest things they know are harmful. They're too lazy to exercise. They grow up believing that government should take care of them, regardless of the degree of their self-affliction.

Another basic component is the ease with which the medical establishment can over-charge. Perhaps Obamacare can put a dent in the above-mentioned abuses.

Years ago, I spoke with a retired doctor in California. In a moment of candor, he admitted gross over-charging for every aspect of medical care - which he and all his colleagues were a party to. We were sitting at his 6 million dollar home in a deluxe section of town, colloquially called 'Pill Hill.'

[hawker9000]

Just as the Wall Street meltdown of 2008 was partially the fault of greedy Americans - regular folks. So too, a large part of the problem with (who pays for) medical coverage in the US is with regular Americans. Among other things, it's those Americans who don't take proper care of themselves. They ingest things they know are harmful. They're too lazy to exercise. They grow up believing that government should take care of them, regardless of the degree of their self-affliction.

Another basic component is the ease with which the medical establishment can over-charge. Perhaps Obamacare can put a dent in the above-mentioned abuses.

Years ago, I spoke with a retired doctor in California. In a moment of candor, he admitted gross over-charging for every aspect of medical care - which he and all his colleagues were a party to. We were sitting at his 6

million dollar home in a deluxe section of town, colloquially called 'Pill Hill.'

Yet another attempt to sell a huge turd to people based on anecdote. These are the kinds of one-off stories Obama's co-conspirators used to sell so many naive and gullible Americans on the whole idea of Obamacare. One-off stories and manipulated statistics that pretty effectively obscured the very consequences opponents accurately foresaw and which are being experienced now, like rising plan costs and people losing their plans. Of course, if you were one of those who did the foreseeing, and are talking about it now, you're a "nattering nabob of negativism".

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies and troll posts removed.

[spidermike007]

Sorry hardly does it Mr President. It is within your power to change the restrictions on policy types and coverage, but you won't. So platitudes will have to do.

Millions are losing their health care coverage in the US while being forced to replace them with policies at much higher rates and deductibles. Once again the insurance companies have struck gold on the backs of the middle class. Ironically, the very people Mr Obama was trying to protect.

This incapable nimrod of a leader allowed the insurance companies to insist on dozens of provisions that were predatory, and were never doing to benefit anyone except these heinous companies. He allowed the mandatory provision which stated this:

1. U.S. citizens living outside of the United States but who are not bona fide residents of a foreign country are required to have health insurance or face fines.
   If you:
   a) have told your country of residence that you are not a resident of that country
   and
   are not required to pay income tax in your country of residence,
   then you are not a bona fide resident of that country.
   If you don’t meet these stipulations—or any of the other listed IRS requirements—and you do not purchase health insurance, then you could face fines in 2014 of $285 per family (US$95 for individuals)—or 1% of your income, whichever is the greater amount... That amount will rise to a whopping $2,085 per family (US$695 for individuals) or 2.5% of your income by 2016.
   To avoid these fines, it’s in your best interest to purchase at least minimum essential coverage.
   Good news if you are entitled to Medicare, however: Medicare qualifies as minimum essential coverage. If you’re eligible for Medicare, you won’t be at risk of fines.

So, he essentially set up nearly all ex-pets to be fined by the IRS for NOT HAVING health care insurance by an American company. Even if you are covered over here, that DOES NOT COUNT, and will not be considered by this predatory law. He essentially allowed this heinous practice on his watch. He could have fought it. He did not. He usually does not. His administration is not about fighting for the American people. It is about representing the interests of corporate America. Obamacare is a travesty for the average American. And it seems to be an excuse for government overreach.

There is a option for many of us. There is a group, not AARP, but something similar to them for retired overseas US citizens. They were able to insert into the new law that if you can prove you have lived outside of the US for 335 days of a calendar year that you are not required to buy Obama care. That still leaves you with 30 days a year to visit the US. I wish I remembered that name of the group to thank them for this.

I'd expect to find it in the updated IRS Publication 54.

I haven't bothered to go online to try to read it yet, so I can't say for sure but that anyway is the first place I'd look.

Well, from what I have read so far, the criminal mastermind insurance gangs have gotten away with putting in multiple exemptions for expats living overseas. If you do not pay income tax in the chosen country, you are required to buy an American policy. Period. How many of us pay income tax here, especially those of us who are retired? So, there you have it. And the blundering fool did nothing to stop, or to prevent this. Nothing.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

You said that before...and several of us here disputed your claim, saying that from what we've read, living full time abroad is a sufficient exemption by itself -- regardless of tax paying status.

If you have some source for your claim, please post it here.

[Ulysses G.]

Well, from what I have read so far, the criminal mastermind insurance gangs have gotten away with putting in multiple exemptions for expats living overseas. If you do not pay income tax in the chosen country, you are required to buy an American policy. Period.

I pay income tax here, but do not want to go through the red tape of proving it to the American government. I have a feeling that this information is not true, but can not prove it.

[NeverSure]

But what happens if you have the misfortune to be sick, poor and let's say 55...?

Exactly. That's why the status quo wasn't acceptable. The fight for a truly decent civilized and affordable health care system in the USA ain't over by a long shot. Obamacare is a starting point which may yet be shot down by the obstructionists.

I'm really tired of this. Obamacare doesn't provide health care insurance for those who are 55. It mandates that they buy it or pay a fine. With its regulations it has driven the cost to the consumer up and/or made it unavailable. It is a fiasco.

The "obstructionists" who shoot it down will be the consumers when they get their policies canceled and see what it costs to replace them. They will be from both parties.

It reminds me of someone who would say that the bombing of Pearl Harbor was a "starting point." Well, I guess it was but it also had to have an ending point.

Please show me where the potential is for anyone but the big insurance companies and other big business. Please show me where this has the potential, remembering that it isn't government health care, does nothing to control costs, and passes it all onto the average Joe.

[Jingthing]

The new system for age 55:

Very very poor -- already eligible for Medicaid

Not as poor -- now eligible for Medicaid in states without whacked out right wing governors (those refused to expand Medicaid which is a hallmark of Obamacare)

Next levels up -- mandated private insurance but MASSIVELY SUBSIDIZED based on a PROGRESSIVE look at income

Wealthier level income -- mandated as above with no subsidies

No more rejections based on medical conditions. No more booting customers because they filed a claim one year.

Yes there are winners and losers in this, but don't be surprised if there are many more winners.

I am not selling this system and I am no fan of this system. Universal is obviously better and proven to work in many countries for LESS COST than the U.S. system. But I think because of the core value, insurance for all regardless of medical condition, that it changes the game FOREVER in a good way. Unless the right wingers kill it.

[Baloo22]

"Obama’s pledge that ‘no one will take away your health plan" , By Glenn Kessler

"The Pinocchio Test

The administration is defending this pledge with a rather slim reed — that there is nothing in the law that makes insurance companies force people out of plans they were enrolled in before the law passed. That explanation conveniently ignores the regulations written by the administration to implement the law. Moreover, it also ignores the fact that the purpose of the law was to bolster coverage and mandate a robust set of benefits, whether someone wanted to pay for it or not.

The president’s statements were sweeping and unequivocal — and made both before and after the bill became law. The White House now cites technicalities to avoid admitting that he went too far in his repeated pledge, which, after all, is one of the most famous statements of his presidency.

The president’s promise apparently came with a very large caveat: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan — if we deem it to be adequate.”

Four Pinocchios"

[Jingthing]

I accept that. So what now? Move on with health care reform in a responsible way or just stay stuck at demonizing Obama? I know what the republicans will choose.

[NeverSure]

The new system for age 55:

Very very poor -- already eligible for Medicaid

Not as poor -- now eligible for Medicaid in states without whacked out right wing governors (those refused to expand Medicaid which is a hallmark of Obamacare)

Next levels up -- mandated private insurance but MASSIVELY SUBSIDIZED based on a PROGRESSIVE look at income

Wealthier level income -- mandated as above with no subsidies

No more rejections based on medical conditions. No more booting customers because they filed a claim one year.

Yes there are winners and losers in this, but don't be surprised if there are many more winners.

I am not selling this system and I am no fan of this system. Universal is obviously better and proven to work in many countries for LESS COST than the U.S. system. But I think because of the core value, insurance for all regardless of medical condition, that it changes the game FOREVER in a good way. Unless the right wingers kill it.

So it has some potential to do something for the poor, which has been there for decades. Hospitals can refuse, and many are refusing, to accept it for payment. Many doctors are refusing to accept it, just like many refuse to accept Medicare and Medicaid.

You see, the core problem is that it does nothing to control costs. It mandates that people buy it, but it doesn't mandate that it's usable. It doesn't mandate that people will actually have access to it.

The result is that it will be massively expensive to the government which tries to pay the sky high medical costs in the US. It will be massively expensive for the consumer.

It hurts jobs. If an employer has 50 or more employees he must provide it or pay a fine. The fine is cheaper. If he has 53 employees he will lay off 4. If the employees work part time - not more than 29 hours per week he doesn't have provide it so many people are getting their hours cut back to 29 hours, and many advertised jobs are for 29 hours per week.

If it doesn't start with controlling the very high costs of health care in the US, then it is a sleight of hand to call it an "affordable" act.

When the employer finds a way around this system, the employee is uninsured and has a mandate to buy it himself or pay a fine.

Yes something should be done about US health care, but this is far from "it."

[Jingthing]

So it has some potential to do something for the poor, which has been there for decades.

...

NO! No, it hasn't. Current Medicaid is only for a small number of EXTREMELY indigent people. The restrictions on it are very tight.

EXPANDED Medicaid has the potential to cover a huge additional number of people that would NEVER be covered in the status quo. But right wing republican tea partying governors, they just don't care about poor people, do they? It's all about ideology and Obama demonization to them.

This link is dated. Florida I think IS participating in expanded Medicaid, good on them.

If you're poor and you live in the South, there's a good chance health care reform won't reach you. Intransigent Republican governors from Florida to Texas remain steadfastly resistant to President Barack Obama's plan to expand Medicaid to their neediest constituents.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/medicaid-expansion_n_2103384.html

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted. There are numerous side issues that merit discussion, but not in this thread.

Stay on topic please.

[chuckd]

<snip quoted posts>

Most lawyers support the Democratic Party while almost all doctors support the Republican Party.

So the view of each in the matter of Torts laws and litigation depends on whether your shingle says J.D. or M.D.

Democratic Party legislators and governors write Torts laws that help the patient plaintiff.

Republican Party legislators and governors write Torts laws that favor the defendant doctor.

Fact and reality.

Republican Party people constantly howl against Torts laws. Don't want 'em, don't support 'em, always try to kill 'em.

Ok so what is the answer to the lack of healthcare for some 49 million Americans?

Is it just a case of, tough luck, earn more and be able to afford the premiums?

Or is it a case of, if you can't hack it go somewhere else?

Is this just part of the American Dream?

The first initial steps towards getting to the answers consists of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. Then continue to work from that starting point.

The Republican Party has done nothing historically to deal with your question and opposes anything and everything that would attempt to address your question, or even to begin to address your valid question..

1. For the record, there are 169 members of the House that hold law degrees and 57 Senate members that hold the same educational qualifications.

2. Also for the record, there are 22 members of the House and 3 Senators that hold medical degrees.

3. That is the primary reason we will never see tort reform in our lifetime.

4. Your remark about the history of the Republican party would garner four Pinnochios.

From Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/04/30/how-george-w-bush-would-have-replaced-obamacare/

From CNN Money:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/23/pf/taxes/health_proposal_effect/

[Scott]

I have deleted numerous posts about tort reform. It is interesting and it is tangential to this topic, but IMO it's off-topic. Unless someone wants to give a good reason (by PM, please), as to why these posts should remain, they will be deleted as off-topic.

[chuckd]

So it has some potential to do something for the poor, which has been there for decades.

...

NO! No, it hasn't. Current Medicaid is only for a small number of EXTREMELY indigent people. The restrictions on it are very tight.

EXPANDED Medicaid has the potential to cover a huge additional number of people that would NEVER be covered in the status quo. But right wing republican tea partying governors, they just don't care about poor people, do they? It's all about ideology and Obama demonization to them.

This link is dated. Florida I think IS participating in expanded Medicaid, good on them.

If you're poor and you live in the South, there's a good chance health care reform won't reach you. Intransigent Republican governors from Florida to Texas remain steadfastly resistant to President Barack Obama's plan to expand Medicaid to their neediest constituents.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/medicaid-expansion_n_2103384.html

From your quoted post...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"NO! No, it hasn't. Current Medicaid is only for a small number of EXTREMELY indigent people. The restrictions on it are very tight."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This "small number of EXTREMELY indigent people" cost the federal government $407.7 Billion in 2011, while Medicare which covers all citizens aged 65 and over, cost the federal government $554.4 Billion during the same time frame.

The difference of some $147 Billion could almost be called a "rounding error" in this administration.

http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NHE-Fact-Sheet.html

[blazes]

Take a look at this daffy and delusional democrat trying to shift the blame of these massive policy cancellation from Obamacare to "Capitalism".

What a loon!!

He is indeed a loon, but if you actually listen to the few words he gets in above the caterwauling blonde, you will hear that he is saying that "choice" [in insurance policies] is the essence of capitalism. That would seem to make him a capitalist (whatever that now means).

[Baloo22]

Take a look at this daffy and delusional democrat trying to shift the blame of these massive policy cancellation from Obamacare to "Capitalism".

What a loon!!

He is indeed a loon, but if you actually listen to the few words he gets in above the caterwauling blonde, you will hear that he is saying that "choice" [in insurance policies] is the essence of capitalism. That would seem to make him a capitalist (whatever that now means).

Except for the fact that 15 million citizens already had health insurance policies that they chose. Policies that those citizens felt satisfied their needs. Now, the ruling elite of Obama and his administration has ruled that those policies are no longer "acceptable". Acceptable to Obama and his minions that is. So those policies can no longer can be sold to those citizens even when those citizens want to retain those exact policies.

Frank Pallone flat-out lied when he said that the insurance companies could still sell those policies. And that very smart blonde caught him in his lie and showed him his own lie.

[boomerangutang]

It will be interesting when the primary season starts - leading up to the 2016 prez election. If Hillary runs, she will be worth listening to, as she was at the vanguard of health care reform during her husband's first term. At that time, all her efforts were, predictably, shot down by republicans.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted.

[ricklev]

No wonder Obama has aged so quickly. It must make a man awfully weary to fight the good fight against the forces of ignorance and confusion.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies have been deleted.

[uptheos]

Charles Krauthammer seems to have got it just about right.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/07/krauthammer_on_obamas_obamacare_apology_the_president_now_is_toxic.html

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted and a post violating Fair use.

[Baloo22]

"Obama administration knew millions could not keep their health insurance", NBC News

" Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”

“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn't keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn't make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates... "

Even more evidence of the blatant dishonesty of Obama and his administration! Obama's "sorry" means little when it's apparent that he knew about the issue a long time ago and took no corrective action.

[NeverSure]

So it has some potential to do something for the poor, which has been there for decades.

...

NO! No, it hasn't. Current Medicaid is only for a small number of EXTREMELY indigent people. The restrictions on it are very tight.

EXPANDED Medicaid has the potential to cover a huge additional number of people that would NEVER be covered in the status quo. But right wing republican tea partying governors, they just don't care about poor people, do they? It's all about ideology and Obama demonization to them.

This link is dated. Florida I think IS participating in expanded Medicaid, good on them.

If you're poor and you live in the South, there's a good chance health care reform won't reach you. Intransigent Republican governors from Florida to Texas remain steadfastly resistant to President Barack Obama's plan to expand Medicaid to their neediest constituents.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/medicaid-expansion_n_2103384.html

Doctors aren't required to accept medicaid. It pays very little - less than a doctor's costs, and many, many won't accept patients who have medicaid.

So even where Obamacare (it's a joke to call it "affordable") expands medicaid to more people, it doesn't guarantee that they can see a doctor or get a prescription.

I wish you'd stop defending the indefensible, and realize that Obama had to apologize for the fack app. He didn't apologize only for the web site, but for people losing their insurance unlike what he promised.

I agree we need an overhaul of the US health care system, but this isn't it.

[samran]

Am particularly enjoying this thread.

Right wing echo chamber par excellence.

[NeverSure]

Am particularly enjoying this thread.

Right wing echo chamber par excellence.

The thread title is:

"Replying to Obama says 'sorry' to Americans losing health insurance."

That's the LEFT wing having to apologize for the f up. I'm being an echo chamber for that.

How people can continue defending what Obama has had to apologize for is beyond me and that's all I'll say about thought processes.

[muchogra]

Sorry seems to be the hardest word...

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I hear, but it ain't hard for politicians to say!

[chuckd]

What I am having trouble wrapping my head around is why everybody is calling what Obama said an "apology".

What he said was he was sorry for those people that lost their health coverage after he gave them "assurances" it wouldn't happen.

An apology from any honest person would have been..."I'm sorry for spreading the tale about keeping your coverage and doctor all those times in a political attempt to get the bill passed and then accepted by the American people so I would win re-election."

He has NOT apologized for any of his actions or statements so far. Narcissists do not apologize.